This has been shot down enough already. This shit keeps coming around and around.... They need to get a fuckin clue.

"There is no teacher but the enemy. No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you how to destroy and conquer. Only the enemy shows you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you." -Mazer Rackham - Ender's Game Orson Scott Card

1. Immunity: CISPA offers "good faith" immunity to companies that identify and report a cyber-security issue to the feds. But, the EFF argued, the definition of good faith is very vague, "which is likely to make difficult any attempt at litigating against companies" that might put your data at risk. During a floor debate this week, Rep. Jared Polis suggested that CISPA incentivizes companies to hand over any and all data just to secure this immunity.

2. Military, NSA Access to Data: Detrators fear that CISPA will allow for companies to hand over data to any branch of the government - including the military and the National Security Agency. In objecting to the bill this week, the White House argued that CISPA "effectively treats domestic cybersecurity as an intelligence activity and thus, significantly departs from longstanding efforts to treat the Internet and cyberspace as civilian spheres." Instead, the Department of Homeland Security, the administration said, should play a "central role" in cyber-security issues. In attempting to address this issue, the House approved an amendment that calls on the Inspector General in his required report about CISPA to list "all federal agencies receiving information shared with the government," but it doesn't expressly stop agencies like the NSA from viewing the data.

3. Just the Beginning: Though bill sponsors argue that they have no nefarious intentions with CISPA, opponents are mainly concerned with its unintended consequences. As ACLU legislative counsel Michelle Richardson argued last night, "once the government gets expansive national security authorities, there's no going back." In its statement, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) said it was concerned that CISPA does not address the use of data "for national security purposes unrelated to cybersecurity."

4. Bypassing Existing Laws: A common theme on the House floor and in CISPA-related statements from privacy groups is that the bill overrides privacy, wiretap, and surveillance laws that are already on the books. "Without clear legal protections and independent oversight, information sharing legislation will undermine the public's trust in the Government as well as in the Internet by undermining fundamental privacy, confidentiality, civil liberties, and consumer protections," the White House said.

5. GOP Ignoring Amendments: Members of Congress opposed to CISPA have complained that House leadership did not allow votes on amendments that would have addressed some of their concerns. "Such momentous issues deserved a vote of the full House," CDT argued. During a floor debate yesterday, however, Rep. Richard Nugent said that the process was "a perfect example of how this House is supposed to work," while other supporters noted that CISPA was passed out of committee with a vote of 17 to 1.

This information isn't going to be to used to go after Pirate Bay uploaders/downloaders. That information is already available and I'm sure, if you have been, your access is already being monitored. So can someone please explain why ANYONE needs to cry Wolf?

The only thing I get offended by is actions that do or proposals that would violate mine or other people's rights. Greatly offended I am indeed, and I knew this bill would come back in an ever more terrifying form, tweaked just enough that businesses would get on board.

Which brings me to my next point. A violation of one right is a threat to them all if left unchecked, because the underlying principles behind each are the same: that free peoples should be able to do as they please as long as they don't interfere with other folks' rights. Needless to say, people, this time I think we will be standing on our own. Start calling your reps and writing them letters, and emails, and be professional about it.

A fitting avatar you have there But yes, this is true. Privacy and freedom are basic rights, not luxuries and it doesn't matter that they don't drag people off to jail who aren't doing anything wrong. If we allow even the slightest violation of these, it will open a door for the larger ones.

Funny how those who claim to be "the good guys" only have to use words like Terror and Copyright to completely dismiss peoples rights, the geneva convention and many many other things that they are so busy starting wars with "the bad guys" over.

I take it no one has a good answer. Which means, to me, that it's rabble rousing. Unless, you're a hacker, terrorist, or a pedobear with kiddie pron, then I doubt you have anything to worry about. Your freely downloaded games, software, movies, and music will be fine, as it currently is now.

Your information is ALREADY available to those that would A) Need it B) Abuse it. It is already being done with the CURRENT laws and regulation. From what I understand, the law basically allows Corporations to give the information up on security breaches, without being held liable for damages.

For example, if Visa gets hacked. Then they have to give the information up to the Feds. Numbers, names, addresses and etc. This in turn, could lead to then information gathering on Credit Fraud/IRS evasion. So let's say, John Doe has more than one name, hides the information from the IRS, but because Visa got hacked. His information was turned in, bread crumbs lead to real name, and his account is Flagged, because he is committing Tax Evasion. Now John, then can't turn around and get his case thrown out, because that wasn't what the information was for.

Also if said hacking of Visa occurs, then it's possible that if Visa is within bounds of "properly regarding safety" and the information is stolen. Then you can't turn around and sue Visa because it isn't Visa "fault". Now this might be an issue for people. Then basically, a judge would then have to decide if Visa should be held liable for damages, on credit. Then each individual would have to sue the person responsible for the theft. Which could lead to some seriously fucked up court cases.

If you're a mostly stand up citizen. Then you have absolutely nothing to worry about. I have no idea why anyone with reputable actions needs to worry.

Funny how those who claim to be "the good guys" only have to use words like Terror and Copyright to completely dismiss peoples rights, the geneva convention and many many other things that they are so busy starting wars with "the bad guys" over.

What happened on 9/11 was actually that the terrorists won.

in a sad way that is really true. one of their goals was to forever change the way the usa policies worked and operated and they did just that. a lot of our liberties we used to have our gone now.

wonder if this means sopa is on the way back as well?

Last edited by breadisfunny; 2013-02-12 at 06:30 AM.

r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
i will never forgive you for this blizzard.

If you're a mostly stand up citizen. Then you have absolutely nothing to worry about. I have no idea why anyone with reputable actions needs to worry.

A stand up citizen has cause to worry because those passing these laws aren't serving that stand up individuals interest. The wording in the bill is ambiguous and overwrites less ambiguous laws currently in place.

This information isn't going to be to used to go after Pirate Bay uploaders/downloaders. That information is already available and I'm sure, if you have been, your access is already being monitored. So can someone please explain why ANYONE needs to cry Wolf?

I believe the difference is in the following:

Current case:

You do something questionable online. Such as download a movie illegally.
third party representing the company that made the movie finds out about it
they contact the ISP which hosts your IP and send a cease and desist letter
(They can't just get your information because it would require costly court fees/time, ISP's are required to protect your privacy)
They must repeat this process 3 times before the ISP can do anything about it (EI shut your internet off)

After CICSPA:

You do something questionable online. Such as download a movie illegally.
Third party representing the company that made the movie finds out about it
they contact the ISP which hosts your IP and they fork over your details for free, instantly, your ISP shuts your internet off for good and you go to jail as if a cop had arrested you on the street for public intoxication.

The tinfoil hat implication being that under the new law, things like patriot act could follow through, and your rights be stripped, not even so much as due process since you're a "cyber threat". You supposedly did wrong, they're the ultimate power, you pay hefty fines and go to jail for 5, 10, 15 years etc etc etc.

Additionally, things that aren't even remotely related to cyber threats could suddenly be deemed cyber threats since their definition is very lose, not to mention all the "hacking" software out there that could turn your computer into a cyber threat under their definition without you even knowing about it.

This may not be 100% accurate, but based on what I'm reading, that's the case.

What I'm getting from all this is, the internet is a big scary place, and the average dumbass consumer would rather tell their representative to 'DO SOMETHING' about how scary it is, than get educated and learn to navigate it themselves. That combined with the groups like the RIAA and the MPAA and so on that just want to literally murder every person who has ever done so much as listen to a song on their friends ipod for free.

I had a feeling that something would surface after their little stunt.

Government can be changed in two ways: through lobbying elected officials or through force. What Anonymous did was neither, and though I supported their reasons, messing with the front-end of a marginal government website is pointless and only gives enemies of freedom more ammunition to use.

You do something questionable online. Such as download a movie illegally.
third party representing the company that made the movie finds out about it
they contact the ISP which hosts your IP and send a cease and desist letter
(They can't just get your information because it would require costly court fees/time, ISP's are required to protect your privacy)
They must repeat this process 3 times before the ISP can do anything about it (EI shut your internet off)

After CICSPA:

You do something questionable online. Such as download a movie illegally.
Third party representing the company that made the movie finds out about it
they contact the ISP which hosts your IP and they fork over your details for free, instantly, your ISP shuts your internet off for good and you go to jail as if a cop had arrested you on the street for public intoxication.

The tinfoil hat implication being that under the new law, things like patriot act could follow through, and your rights be stripped, not even so much as due process since you're a "cyber threat". You supposedly did wrong, they're the ultimate power, you pay hefty fines and go to jail for 5, 10, 15 years etc etc etc.

Additionally, things that aren't even remotely related to cyber threats could suddenly be deemed cyber threats since their definition is very lose, not to mention all the "hacking" software out there that could turn your computer into a cyber threat under their definition without you even knowing about it.

This may not be 100% accurate, but based on what I'm reading, that's the case.

What I'm getting from all this is, the internet is a big scary place, and the average dumbass consumer would rather tell their representative to 'DO SOMETHING' about how scary it is, than get educated and learn to navigate it themselves. That combined with the groups like the RIAA and the MPAA and so on that just want to literally murder every person who has ever done so much as listen to a song on their friends ipod for free.

I would imagine it's simply a way to create a place for any corporation, business, or other entity that uses digital media that allows them to maximise how much money they can make from their products.

If you enact that law in America, and everyone stores and distributes their digital media there, then creates a hundred-and-one laws that stop anyone making anything similar, distributing it from outside the USA, or entering the market, you effectively have a monopoly. People will pay for neither quantity nor quality, they simply pay because there is nowhere else to get whatever is being sold.

That's my theory on why they keep trying to pass these bills, and why they won't stop being passed. When money is concerned, nothing will stop it.

My sentiments exactly on these online mediation bills, this was never about "national security" or anything of the like in regards to protecting the nation, this was about money from the start, so they can go fuck themselves if they think this is going to fly without a fight.